Do the math -- this project isn't the answer

In the national election, "math" was a big topic. There was electoral college math, polling math, and fiscal policy math.

Now math looms large for a local issue: The fairgrounds. What began as a good idea, economic redevelopment, has become a nightmarish idea for taxpayers.

Right after the election -- conveniently right after the supervisor race -- Solano County government released a "Specific Plan" for the fairgrounds. The new plan is so divorced from economic reality, and so different from the original plan, that both city and county residents should be asking, how did it come to this?

Elected officials have spent $4.5 million on project plans so far, starting with a $2 million "vision." And here's where we are:

* According to the Specific Plan, the project will require more than $90 million in public funds (county and city bonds). That's triple the amount of debt in the original plan three years ago.

* The fairgrounds will have about 75 percent less retail/commercial/office space than originally proposed. No hotels either. While taxpayer obligations have skyrocketed, the revenue-generating capacity has plummeted.

* The payback period has been extended from 15 years to 50 years. That's no misprint. By trying to make the math work, our local government is admitting, without irony, that the debt will be passed on to our grandchildren.

According to a recent article in the Times-Herald, Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering thinks that Vallejo officials are slowing down the project by trying to negotiate a better deal. He is being disingenuous. The biggest delay was due to an unfavorable marketing study. Besides, resistance is not coming from City Hall (though it should be). Resistance is coming from taxpayers, who can easily see what a rotten deal this is.

Here's the question city and county residents should be asking their elected officials: How can you even consider risking $90 million of public money on so speculative a project? If the money was spent on, say, a high-tech research park on Mare Island, that might warrant a 50-year investment. But a restaurant row and family entertainment center? Believe it or not, those are the commercial ventures now planned for the fairgrounds.

While all Solano County residents should object to this boondoggle of a project, it does affect Vallejo residents in an especially bad way. This is for two reasons:

* The city is being asked to provide $24 million of the total public funds. That's for on-site infrastructure for property that the county owns. And it's in addition to off-site improvements and municipal services that Vallejo will have to provide. Although the project is supposedly being built to create a "fairgrounds of the future" and to boost county revenue, no other city is being asked to contribute anything.

* The Specific Plan does not provide a way for the county to get back the $4.5 million that it borrowed from its general fund and spent already. That's a major change from the Vision Plan, which factored in those costs. How could this happen? Because after the Vision was adopted by both parties, the city (unadvisedly) agreed to reimburse all of the county's direct and indirect expenses through future tax revenue.

That Vallejo should remain on the hook for a $4.5 million reimbursement -- even after the project is scaled down by 75 percent -- is appalling. By the time revenue sharing is figured in, it is likely that Vallejo will receive no economic benefit at all from a $24 million infrastructure investment. Possibly Vallejo will be worse off -- much worse -- if the project is built to anything less than full capacity or if some restaurant sales shift from other parts of the city, such as from Gateway Plaza across Interstate 80. The fiscal Impact analysis rather curiously neglects the topic of "net gain/loss."

It is time to demand that elected officials act in a fiscally responsible manner with regard to the fairgrounds. The first step is to help them resist temptation, to distinguish what they would like to do from what we can afford to do. The project may have some merit, but not $90 million worth -- not even close. There is no better evidence than the county having to act as master developer for nearly the whole thing. If a private developer thought the project was worthwhile, as was originally proposed, then the public would not have to assume such a massive amount of debt-and risk.

As we "do the math," we should keep in mind that city and county government is, in a manner of speaking, just down the road. If we cannot control our local officials' urge to spend, then we can hardly expect anything different from our national government 3.000 miles away.